Orissa Court April 1994 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Randi Lachaya and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-12-1994
Reported in: (1995)ILLJ770Ori
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. This is an appeal by insurer under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.')2. There being delay in preferring the appeal, an application was filed and long after the delay having been condoned, this appeal has come up for admission. Since facts arc admitted by both the parties and question of law is to be decided, I admitted the appeal. Since cause of action is of the year 1987 and workman is deprived of the compensation, with consent of parties the appeal is heard finally as parties agreed that record from the Commissioner would not be necessary.3. Claiming to be workman driver of the vehicle ATJ 9457, respondent No. l filed an application claiming compensation under the Act alleging that on May 6, 1987, while driving the vehicle in course of and arising out of employ-menu he met with an accident sustaining injuries. Respondent No. 2 the employer admitted the accident, employment and injuries. It is stated that workman ...
Rabi Sahu Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-12-1994
Reported in: 78(1994)CLT237; 1994CriLJ2226
ORDERD.M. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner in this revision assails the order of conviction under Section 326, I.P.C. and sentence of R. 1. for a period of two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo R. 1. for one year more.2. The prosecution case is that on 22-1-1988 about 3 p.m. when P.W.6, the injured was coming out of the Jay Jagannath Cinema Hall of Itamati after witnessing the noon-show picture he was stabbed by the petitioner with a knife which caused injury on the chest and abdoman. He became unconscious and subsequently the matter was reported to the police by his father (P.W. 2). The matter after investigation chargesheet was submitted, and the petitioner was convicted as already stated above.3. The petitioner denied the prosecution case, as alleged. Though various contentions were raised by Mr, P. K. Misra the learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the legality and propriety of the order of conviction and sentence and confirmation thereof, yet on examination...
Krupasindhu Bhoi and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-12-1994
Reported in: 78(1994)CLT62; 1995CriLJ1488
A. Pasayat, J. 1. The appellants (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') stood charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC'), and in addition accused Jugal stood charged under Section 302, and accused Krupasindhu under Section 323, IPC, The learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack found accused Krupasindhu guilty of the offence punishable under second part of Section 304 read with Section 34 and Section 323, IPC and accordingly sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the former offence and one year for the latter offence, with a direction that the sentences were to run concurrently. Accused Jugal was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 304, Part I, IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The conviction and sentence of both the accused-appellants are the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. 2. Accusations which led to the trial of th...
Sukanta Kumar Mishra Vs. District Judge-cum-m.A.C.T. and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-11-1994
Reported in: I(1995)ACC595; 1995ACJ890; 78(1994)CLT625
A. Pasayat, J.1. The petitioner seeks for a direction to the District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Balasore (in short, 'the Tribunal') to consider his application for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, 'the Act'). The Claims Tribunal has rejected the prayer on the ground that the application was presented beyond the period prescribed for such presentation. Alternatively, it is prayed that the Claims Tribunal be directed to treat information given by the Officer-in-charge, Bhadrak Town Police Station, as a claim petition in terms of Section 166(4) of the Act.2. The background facts as presented by the petitioner are as follows:On 28.10.1991 a petition under Section 166 of the Act was filed by the petitioner praying for grant of compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- for the multiple injuries allegedly sustained in an accident on 9.5.1990 near Samraipur octroi check gate on Bhadrak-Balasore Road. In the claim petition it was stated that he sus...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sailendra Kumar Nayak and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-07-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR204]; (1998)IIILLJ139Ori
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Insurer is the appellant under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.2. There is a delay of four days in preferring the appeal. Accordingly, when this appeal came up for orders relating to condonation of delay, for the benefit of the workmen I called upon the parties to argue on the merits so that the appeal can be finally disposed of. It is true that the record of the lower Court has not been received as yet. However, parties possess the relevant records. Besides, an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act either by the owner or by the insurer is confined to question of law only. Therefore, unless the question of law depends upon the facts of the case, no prejudice would be caused if the records are not received. In the present case, however, parties are in possession of relevant papers. After hearing Mr. Basu, learned counsel for appellant, I am satisfied that there is sufficient cause for the delay. Accordingly, delay is condoned, ...
Edla Neelaya and ors. Vs. Edla Ramada Alias Ramadas and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-06-1994
Reported in: 78(1994)CLT543; I(1995)DMC19
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 6 are appellants in this appeal. Plaintiffs have preferred a cross-objection.2. When an application for stay of final decree proceeding was filed on behalf of the appellants, I directed that the appeal may be finally disposed of dispensing with preparation of paper books. Accordingly, appeal has been heard,with consent of parties.3. Plaintiffs are sons of defendant No. 1. On account of separation from mother of plaintiffs, defendant No. 1 resided with defendant No. 2 as husband and wife and defendant Nos. 4 to 6 are the three sons of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of their share in Schedules A to B properties described in the plaint. Since plaintiffs filed the suit as indigent persons defendant No. 3 State of Orissa has been added as a party,4 Case of plaintiff is that 'B' Schedule property is the ancestral property of defendant No. 1 and plaintiffs. A Schedule properties have been acquired by defendant ...
Nilagiri Engineering Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-05-1994
Reported in: (1994)120CTR(Ori)220; [1994]208ITR326(Orissa)
L. RATH J. - The petitioner is a co-operative society of some graduate engineers undertaking labour contract in the State of Orissa. The dispute relates to the assessment of income-tax for the year 1984-85. The moot question arising for consideration is whether the society is entitled to the benefit of section 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Income-tax Act of deduction from its gross total income, in computing the income, of the whole amount of its profits and gains since it is a co-operative society engaged in collective disposal of the labour of its members. The stand having been negatived by both the assessing and the appellate authorities as well as the second appellate authority, i.e., the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioners have come before this court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.The brief facts necessary to elucidate the questions raised appear in the very order of the Appellate Tribunal, vide annexure-7. The undisputed facts are that the membership of the petiti...
Mrutunjoy Lenka and ors. Vs. Gagan Kishore SwaIn (Dead) and After Him ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-04-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Ori71
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Rejection of an application for adducing additional evidence before delivery of judgment by the appellate Court is grievance of the appellant-petitioners in this Civil Revision.2. For the purpose of considering whether additional evidence is to be entertained by the appellate Court, first it is to be examined whether the evidence sought to be adduced is relevant and admissible. If admissibility of document would require proof through oral evidence, court is to consider whether such opportunity is to be given. This would depend upon three circumstances as indicated in Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. Where a party was not in possession of the additional evidence at the time of trial, he can be given opportunity to bring in the same to record and for the purpose of bringing them to record, court is to assist that party. Where despite the evidence being produced court refused to entertain the same, appellate Court can give opportunity to the party for bringing the mater...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›